Roland Coats wanted to leave a substantial proportion of his estate to charity. He named one charity in his will and asked his daughters, Sarah Bush and Debbie de Spon, to spread £20,000 between six others. He included a letter with his will naming those that he preferred.

As his executors, the sisters carried out his wishes and that, they thought, was the last of the paperwork involved in winding up their father's estate. That was until they started receiving junk mail from charities they had never heard of - large envelopes containing annual reports, brochures, catalogues, videos and DVDs, with letters pleading for donations.

Most of the postal items went to de Spon, who lives in London, but a dozen arrived at Bush's home in France and five were sent to their solicitor. Letters were still arriving last week, 13 months later.

The sisters received a total of more than 60 mailshots, enough to fill several bin liners, but not one of them came from a charity their father supported, says de Spon.

"Receiving these mailshots caused distress at an already emotional time," she says. "But there was no way to stop the influx and we just endured the daily arrival of yet more waste paper."

Bush adds: "I doubt whether people donating to these charities realise their money is being spent on a 'for-profit' advisory service."

Wills are public documents and, until 1975, the Probate Service itself notified charities when they had been left legacies. It has passed this function to Smee & Ford which, by arrangement with the Probate Service, receives a copy of all wills published.

Charities pay Smee & Ford to let them know when they are mentioned in wills and also, for £1,009 a year, who has left bequests to unnamed charities - in effect, money that is up for grabs. For executors, it means a flood of marketing literature.

Anne Lewis, a partner with law firm Cripps Harries Hall, confirms that general charity clauses create difficulties for solicitors, too: "In one estate we handled, more than 100 charities wrote in. It can really add to costs, particularly if they badger you for a response." Smee & Ford's publishing director, Paula McQuillan, says it does not alert every charity on its register when there is money available: "We provide the information to a limited number of charities. We do follow a series of rules. We make a judgment on which charities might find that information helpful. It depends on the wording of the will and the nature of the bequest."

The Probate Service is reviewing its arrangement with Smee & Ford and expects to report shortly. It says it recognises that managing the estate of a family member can be a difficult and emotional role, but it wants to balance this with the value of the service to charities.

De Spon says she understands that. "In principle, it is quite right that charities should have access to information about people who want suggestions for charitable donations, but it is quite wrong that everyone should be approached and that there is no opt-out available to those who do not," she says.

She had contacted a couple of the charities being touted - a young people's orchestra and an outdoor activity programme - who were unaware that mail was being sent to people who had not asked for it. Both said they would look again at the arrangement. McQuillan believes that if charities felt it was giving them any kind of negative publicity or causing problems for them, they would let Smee & Ford know.

Bush contacted Autism Speaks because she suspected they did not understand the impact on the recipients of their mailshots. "Preying on people in times of grief is totally insensitive and grossly intrusive," she says.

Like the other charities, Autism Speaks did not realise it was competing with so many of Smee & Ford's other clients for the same pot of money. Jane Wesley, the charity's fundraiser, says: "Autism Speaks subscribed to this service in good faith, believing that it would be put in touch with only those bereaved families seeking to fulfil their relatives' wish to donate to medical research. We were disappointed to learn that this was not the case." The charity has withdrawn its subscription to the Smee & Ford service.

Executors can avoid a deluge of charitable appeals by opening a legacy account with the Charities Aid Foundation (CAF). It costs nothing to set up, nor anything to change your nominated charities, as only CAF is named in the will. The foundation charges 1% of the donations eventually made. It can be contacted at cafonline.org.